DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-11, 13-19 and 21-22 are pending in this application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
3. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 10/30/2025 in response to the non-final action mailed on 07/31/2025. Claims 1-3, 8-9 and 16-19 have been amended. Claims 4-8, 10-11 and 13-15 have been kept original. Claims 12 and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-22 have been newly introduced. Amendment has been entered.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments, filed on 10/30/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-22 under 35 U.S.C. §101 an abstract idea (mental process) (Applicant’s arguments, pages 7-8), have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Respectfully, the examiner disagrees, see the clarification below.
Applicant argues that the claims have been amend to recite “transmitting the state snapshot over a network to at least one second full node, wherein the state snapshot enables the at least one second full node to obtain the state value without accessing its own local disk.” First, transmitting data has been found by the courts as a well understood and routine procedure, See MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)”. The network is a merely component used to implement the transmission of data. Second, a human can observe data and assign a value to represent its state. For example, a driver observes the traffic flow and mentally categorizes it as "congested" to decide on a different route. There is nothing so complex in the limitation that could not be doing in the human mind. Finally, this newly introduced limitation does not render the claims ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as an abstract idea (mental process).
It is also noted that nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) - Mental Process.
Applicant argues that the “claim 2 specifies that creating the state snapshot comprises “generating an authenticated data structure including a block number field, a transaction index field, a state key field, a state value field, and a Merkle proof field, wherein the Merkle proof enables the at least one second full node to verify the validity of the state value without accessing a complete state tree.” A human can observe data and create a schema to represent the observed data for validation. For example, a data engineer observes inconsistent sensor logs and creates a structured JSON schema to automatically validate the integrity of incoming data packets. Given a broad reasonable interpretation, the block number field, transaction index field, state key field, state value field, and Merkle proof field are merely components of the format of the state snapshot, which is a component used to implement the mental step.
Applicant argues that the “Even assuming arguendo that some aspect of the claims could be characterized as abstract, the claims clearly integrate any such concept into a practical application that provides a specific technological improvement. The claimed method addresses a problem specific to distributed blockchain computing: redundant disk I/O operations performed by multiple full
nodes.” The claimed redundant disk I/O operations are recited broadly and do not disclose any specific steps that would improve the functioning of the disk I/O operations.
Applicant argues that the “The solution provided (i.e., transmitting authenticated state snapshots over a network to enable peer nodes to "obtain the state value without accessing its own local disk") is necessarily rooted in computer network technology. As specified in claim 3, the state snapshot includes "a number of state values field indicating a count of state values included in the state snapshot, wherein the at least one second full node uses the number of state values field to allocate memory resources before receiving the complete state snapshot.” Claim 3 simply mentions instructions to implement the abstract idea and does not recite any elements that would improve the underlying technology. The elements of claim 3 do not constitute a patentable invention because they provide only generic computer instructions to execute a mental process rather than a specific technical improvement to the system's efficiency.
Applicant argues that the “The Examiner's assertion that the additional elements amount to "well-understood, routine, and conventional" activities is demonstrably incorrect.” However, the Applicant did not specifically state which elements identified by the Examiner as well-understood, routine, and conventional provide significantly more than any alleged abstract idea; therefore, this argument is moot.
For all the reasons above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as an abstract idea (mental process) is upheld.
Applicant's arguments, filed on 10/30/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11, 13-19 and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. §103 (Applicant’s arguments, pages 8-12), have been fully considered and are but are moot because the independent claims are amended and introduce new limitations that were not previously presented newly found prior art has been applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 35 U.S.C. §101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11, 13-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (Mental Process) without significantly more. The claims similarly recite steps to aggregated computer log records.
The following is an analysis based on 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category?
Claims 1-11, 13-16 and 21-22 are directed to a method.
Claim 17-19 are directed to an apparatus.
Therefore, claims 1-11, 13-19 and 21-22 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
For Claims 1-7, 17-19 and 21-22
Step 2A, Prong I: Judicial Exception Recited?
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute a “Mental Process”, as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
As per claims 1 and 17, the claims similarly recite the limitations of:
“creating a state snapshot including the state value;” Given a broad reasonable interpretation, creating a state snapshot can be seen as generating a concise summary of a particular condition, such as a transaction's status at a specific point in time. A human can indeed observe a transaction, apply their judgment, and mentally summarize the status of the transaction. For example, a human can observe a transaction and determine its state value, such as 'idle,' and mentally summarize the status based on that observation in a specific predetermined format, see specification paragraph [0075]. There is nothing so complex in the limitation that could not be doing in the human mind.
“wherein the state snapshot enables the at least one second full node to obtain the state value without accessing its own local disk.” a human can observe data and assign a value to represent its state. For example, a driver observes the traffic flow and mentally categorizes it as "congested" to decide on a different route. The own local disk is a merely element used to implement the abstract idea. There is nothing so complex in the limitation that could not be doing in the human mind.
As per dependent claims 2 and 18, the claims recite the limitation of:
“wherein creating the state snapshot comprises generating an authenticated data structure including a block number field, a transaction index field, a state key field, a state value field, and a Merkle proof field, wherein the Merkle proof is used for verifying the validity of the state value.” A human can observe data and create a schema to represent the observed data for validation. For example, a data engineer observes inconsistent sensor logs and creates a structured JSON schema to automatically validate the integrity of incoming data packets. There is nothing so complex in the limitation that could not be doing in the human mind. Given a broad reasonable interpretation, the block number field, transaction index field, state key field, state value field, and Merkle proof field are merely components of the format of the state snapshot, which is a component used to implement the mental step.
As per dependent claim 3, the claim recites the limitation of:
“wherein the format of the state snapshot comprises a number of state values field indicating a count of state values included in the state snapshot, wherein the number of state values field indicates a count of state values included in the state snapshot for processing multiple state values in a single transmission.” Given a broad reasonable interpretation, the number of state values field is a merely component of the format of the state snapshot, which is a component used to implement the mental step. The wherein the number of state values field indicates a count of state values included in the state snapshot for processing multiple state values in a single transmission are merely instructions used to implement the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 22, the claim recites the limitation of:
“wherein reading the state value comprises identifying state values predicted to be accessed by the at least one second full node during transaction processing.” A human can observe data and identify the value of a second data set that was previously predicted. For example, a technician can observe current sensor readings and identify how they compare to a previously predicted value to determine the accuracy of a forecast. There is nothing so complex in the limitation that could not be doing in the human mind.
Accordingly, claims 1-7, 17-19 and 21-22 recite at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong II: Integrated into a Practical Application?
The claims recite the following additional limitations/elements:
As per independent claim 1, the claim recites the additional element of:
“a first full node and a plurality of distributed full nodes” Given a broad, reasonable interpretation, a first full node and a plurality of distributed full nodes are nothing more than a computer device that stores and processes blockchain data. This element (a first full node) is example of merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the additional elements of the limitations invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) do not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field; and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
As per independent claims 1 and 17, the claims recite the additional limitations of:
“reading a state value required for processing a transaction of a new block from a local disk in a same order as an order of processing transactions of a plurality of new blocks;” This limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the additional limitation exemplifies mere data gathering, without any further processing or analysis. Given a broad, reasonable interpretation, the local disk is merely an element serving as a storage tool.
“transmitting the state snapshot over a network to at least one second full node.” This limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the additional limitation exemplifies mere data gathering and transmission, without any further processing or analysis. Given a broad, reasonable interpretation, a second full node is nothing more than a computer device that stores and processes blockchain data.
As per dependent claim 4, the claim recites the additional limitation of:
“transferring the state snapshot by broadcast to peer nodes and transmitting the above state snapshot to peer nodes including at least one other full node of the blockchain network.” This limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the additional limitation exemplifies mere data gathering and transmission, without any further processing or analysis. Given a broad, reasonable interpretation, a peer nodes and other full node are nothing more than a computer devices that stores and processes blockchain data.
As per dependent claim 5, the claim recites the additional limitation of:
“wherein, in transferring the state snapshot, a scheme for the at least one second full node to receive the state snapshot is set in advance during a handshake between the first full node and the at least one second full node.” This limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the additional limitation exemplifies mere data gathering and transmission, without any further processing or analysis. Given a broad, reasonable interpretation, a scheme is nothing more than an arrangement of computer devices.
As per dependent claim 6, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
“wherein the scheme for the at least one second full node to receive the state snapshot includes a push type receiving scheme and a pull type receiving scheme, wherein the push type receiving scheme comprises:” This limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the additional limitation exemplifies mere data gathering and transmission, without any further processing or analysis.
“receiving, by the first full node, a sharing request for the state snapshot from the at least one second full node;” This limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the additional limitation exemplifies mere data gathering and transmission, without any further processing or analysis. Given a broad, reasonable interpretation, a second full node is nothing more than a computer device that stores and processes blockchain data.
“transmitting the state snapshot to the at least one second full node.” This limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the additional limitation exemplifies mere data gathering and transmission, without any further processing or analysis. Given a broad, reasonable interpretation, a second full node is nothing more than a computer device that stores and processes blockchain data.
As per dependent claim 7, the claim recites the additional limitation of:
“receiving another state snapshot including another state value for another new block from a full node belonging to the at least one second full node.” This limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the additional limitation exemplifies mere data gathering and transmission, without any further processing or analysis. Given a broad, reasonable interpretation, a second full node is nothing more than a computer device that stores and processes blockchain data.
As per independent claim 17, the claim recites the additional limitations/elements of:
“a desktop computer, mobile terminal, blockchain network, processor, memory, and at least one instruction” Given a broad, reasonable interpretation, a second full node is nothing more than a computer device that stores and processes blockchain data. This element (a second full node) is example of merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the additional elements of the limitations invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) do not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field; and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
“access a local disk storing state information;” Given a broad, reasonable interpretation, accessing a local disk refers to the process of reading or writing data to a storage device that is directly connected to your computer, such as a hard drive or solid-state drive (SSD). This allows you to retrieve, modify, or store data on the disk. This limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the additional limitation exemplifies mere data gathering and transmission, without any further processing or analysis. Given a broad, reasonable interpretation, the local disk is merely an element serving as a storage tool.
As per dependent claim 19, the claim recites the additional limitation of:
“wherein the at least one instruction causing the processor to transmit the state snapshot to the at least one other full node is configured to cause the processor to:” This limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the additional limitation exemplifies mere data gathering and transmission, without any further processing or analysis.
“transfer the state snapshot by broadcast to nodes including the at least one other full node of the blockchain network, wherein a receiving scheme of the nodes is set during a handshake between the blockchain node and the at least one other.” This limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the additional limitation exemplifies mere data gathering and transmission, without any further processing or analysis. Given a broad, reasonable interpretation, an at least one second full node is nothing more than a computer device that stores and processes blockchain data.
As per dependent claim 21, the claim recites the additional limitation of:
“receiving another state snapshot including another state value for another new block from another full node of the plurality of full nodes; and using the another state value from the received state snapshot to process a transaction of the another new block without performing a local disk read for the another state value.” This limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the additional limitation exemplifies mere data gathering data, without any further processing or analysis.
Therefore, claims 1-7, 17-19 and 21-22 do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
With respect to the limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above the conclusions are carried over, and both the “ reading …; sharing …; transferring …; transmitting …; broadcasting …; receiving …;” storing …; and access ….” are well-understood, routine, and conventional operations.
For support as being well-understood, routine, and conventional for “ reading …; sharing …; transferring …; transmitting …; broadcasting …; receiving …;” storing …; and access ….” as noted by the courts is well understood routine and conventional, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);” and/or MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”, and/or MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “iii. Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);” Panikkar et al. (US 20220231846 A1) para. [0084] “Typically, for example, the new transaction entry is broadcast to all or a subset of nodes within the network and inspected.”; Chen (US 20230068597 A1) para. [0003] “In one conventional approach, a sender broadcasts a transaction to peer-to-peer network, and full blockchain nodes may include this transaction in a new block of the blockchain.” Singh et. al. (US 20240004629 A1) para. [0036] “That is, conventional schemes utilize a “pull” or “poll” operation in which the client device 202 requests the software updates.”; and Pettit (US 20250005568 A1) para. [0011] “One technique used to enforce conditions on a future transaction is generally known as “PUSHTX”, or “OP_PUSHTX”.”.
Looking at the limitations in combination and the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Therefore, the claims 1-7, 17-19 and 21-22 are not patent eligible.
For claims 8-11 and 13-16
Step 2A, Prong I: Judicial Exception Recited?
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute a “Mental Process”, as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
As per independent claim 8, the claim recites the limitation of:
“wherein receiving the state snapshot enables the second full node to obtain the state value without accessing its own local disk.” a human can observe data and assign a value to represent its state. For example, a driver observes the traffic flow and mentally categorizes it as "congested" to decide on a different route. The own local disk is a merely element used to implement the abstract idea. There is nothing so complex in the limitation that could not be doing in the human mind.
As per dependent claim 9, the claim recites the limitation of:
“wherein the state snapshot comprises an authenticated data structure including a block number field, a transaction index field, a state key field, a state value field, and a Merkle proof field, wherein the Merkle proof is used for verifying the validity of the state value.” A human can observe data and create a schema to represent the observed data for validation. For example, a data engineer observes inconsistent sensor logs and creates a structured JSON schema to automatically validate the integrity of incoming data packets. There is nothing so complex in the limitation that could not be doing in the human mind. Given a broad reasonable interpretation, the block number field, transaction index field, state key field, state value field, and Merkle proof field are merely components of the format of the state snapshot, which is a component used to implement the mental step.
As per dependent claim 10, the claim recites the limitation of:
“determining a validity of the state value based on a block number and a transaction index included in the state snapshot.” A human can mentally observe data values related to a transaction and make a determination if the state of the transaction is valid or not. For example, a human can observe data that describe an idle state of a transaction and make a judgment if the idle status of the transaction is valid or not. There is nothing so complex in the limitation that could not be doing in the human mind.
As per dependent claim 11, the claim recites the limitation of:
“when the state value is not valid, ignoring or discarding the state value.” A human can mentally observe a data value, make judgments about the observed data, and ignore or discard it from their mind. For example, A person sees a phone number on a piece of paper, decides they don't need it, and forgets it. There is nothing so complex in the limitation that could not be doing in the human mind.
As per dependent claim 16, the claim recites the limitation of:
“determining whether the state value required to process the transaction of the new block exists in a cache;” A human can mentally observe a transaction and make a determination if a piece of data exists for the observed transaction or not. A person reviews their bank statement and determines if a specific transaction includes a particular merchant ID or not. The cache is merely an element that is being used as a tool to implement the abstract idea. There is nothing so complex in the limitation that could not be doing in the human mind.
Accordingly, claims 8-11 and 13-16 recite at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong II: Integrated into a Practical Application?
The claims recite the following additional limitations/elements:
As per independent claim 8, the claim recites the additional limitations/elements of:
“a second full node; a plurality of distributed full nodes; a first full node and a network” Given a broad, reasonable interpretation, a second full node is nothing more than a computer device that stores and processes blockchain data. This element (a second full node) is example of merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the additional elements of the limitations invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) do not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field; and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
“receiving a new block;” This limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the additional limitation exemplifies mere data gathering and transmission, without any further processing or analysis.
“receiving a state snapshot including a state value required to process a transaction of a new block from a first full node over a network.” This limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the additional limitation exemplifies mere data gathering and transmission, without any further processing or analysis. Given a broad, reasonable interpretation, a first full node is nothing more than a computer device that stores and processes blockchain data.
As per dependent claim 11, the claim recites the additional limitation of:
“when the state value is valid, storing the state value in a memory storage;” This limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the additional limitation exemplifies mere data gathering and transmission, without any further processing or analysis. Given a broad, reasonable interpretation, a memory storage is nothing more than a computer memory storage device that stores and processes blockchain data.
As per dependent claim 13, the claim recites the additional limitation of:
“wherein receiving the state snapshot is performed according to a receiving scheme set in advance during a handshake with the first full node.” This limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the additional limitation exemplifies mere data gathering and transmission, without any further processing or analysis.
As per dependent claim 14, the claim recites the additional limitation of:
“wherein the receiving scheme includes a push type receiving scheme and a pull type receiving scheme, wherein receiving the state snapshot according to the push type receiving scheme comprises: transmitting a request message to the first full node to request the state value; and receiving the state snapshot comprising the state value.” This limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the additional limitation exemplifies mere data gathering and transmission, without any further processing or analysis.
As per dependent claim 15, the claim recites the additional limitation of:
“further comprising: standing by for a preset time until receiving the state value required to process the transaction of the new block from the first full node.” This limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the additional limitation exemplifies mere data gathering and transmission, without any further processing or analysis.
As per dependent claim 16, the claim recites the additional limitation of:
“if the state value required to process the transaction of the new block does not exist in the cache, fetching the state value from a memory space storing the state value received from the first full node to process the transaction without accessing a local disk.” This limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the additional limitation exemplifies mere data gathering and transmission, without any further processing or analysis.
Therefore, claims 8-11 and 13-16 do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
With respect to the limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above the conclusions are carried over, and both the “receiving …; storing …; and fetching ….” are well-understood, routine, and conventional operations.
For support as being well-understood, routine, and conventional for “receiving …; storing …; and fetching ….” as noted by the courts is well understood routine and conventional, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);” and/or MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”, and/or MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “iii. Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);”.
Looking at the limitations in combination and the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Therefore, the claims 8-11 and 13-16 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section § 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claims 1, 4, 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 20230090296 A1) in view of Lu (US 20230090296 A1) in further view of Kwon et al. (US 20200364273 A1).
As per claim 1, Feng teaches a blockchain transaction processing method (i.e. “a method of transaction verification”; para. [0004])
performed by a first full node (i.e. “The transaction verification information is determined by a full node in the blockchain network by executing a transaction service corresponding to the to-be-verified transaction.”; fig. 1, para. [0005], [0028])
among a plurality of distributed full nodes (i.e. “The blockchain system may be a distributed system formed of a plurality of blockchain nodes connected by means of network communication.”; fig. 1, para. [0026]), the method comprising:
reading a state value (i.e. “… It is to be understood that the full node may acquire an MPT in the target block, take the acquired MPT as a pending tree, read state data associated with the transaction-to-be-verified from the pending tree, and then take the read state data as first state data.”; figs. 3, 5, para. [0055], [0064]-[0065]; Examiner note: the reading a state value is interpreted as the read state data associated with the transaction-to-be-verified from the pending tree)
required for processing a transaction of a new block (i.e. “Further, the full node may execute a transaction service corresponding to the transaction-to-be-verified based on the first state data so as to obtain an initial transaction execution result corresponding to the transaction service …”; figs. 3, 5-7, para. [0064]-[0067]; Examiner note: the required for processing the transaction of the new block is interpreted as the full node may execute the transaction service corresponding to the transaction-to-be-verified based on the first state data)
from a local disk (i.e. “at least one magnetic disk memory”; fig. 13, para. [0176])
in a same order as an order of processing transactions of a plurality of new blocks (i.e. “the user node 20A may take the transaction 2x as a transaction-to-be-verified, and then transmit the transaction 2x to the full node 20B shown in FIG. 2, whereby the full node 20B may execute a transaction service corresponding to the transaction 2x, thereby obtaining transaction verification information (e.g., transaction verification information 2y shown in FIG. 2) corresponding to the transaction 2x. The full blockchain of the full node 20B may be a blockchain 2a shown in FIG. 2, and the blockchain 2a may include a plurality of blocks having complete block data”; figs. 2, 5; para. [0006], [0030], [0034]; Examiner note: the same order as the order of processing transactions of the plurality of new blocks is interpreted as the user node 20A may take the transaction 2x as a transaction-to-be-verified, and then transmit the transaction 2x to the full node 20B);
However, it is noted that the prior art of Feng does not explicitly teach “creating a state snapshot including the state value; transmitting the state snapshot over a network to at least one second full node, wherein the state snapshot enables the at least one second full node to obtain the state value without accessing its own local disk.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Lu teaches creating a state snapshot including the state value (i.e. “At 602, a blockchain node generates a snapshot of a current state tree associated with an FDMT during creation of a block of a blockchain, wherein the current state tree stores state information corresponding to a newest block of the blockchain.”; fig. 6, para. [0085], [0089]; Examiner note: the creating the state snapshot including the state value is interpreted as the generates a snapshot of a current state tree);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lu that teaches taking snapshots of blockchain data into Feng that teaches data lineage graphs. Additionally, this approach can optimize the efficiency of legitimacy checks in blockchain.
The motivation for doing so would be to selectively store state data associated with more frequently accessed blocks, thereby lowering the storage costs of the blockchain network without significantly affecting system performance or data integrity (Lu, para. [0007]).
However, it is noted that the prior art of Feng and Lu do not explicitly teach “transmitting the state snapshot over a network to at least one second full node, wherein the state snapshot enables the at least one second full node to obtain the state value without accessing its own local disk.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Kwon teaches transmitting the state snapshot over a network to at least one second full node (i.e. “the peripheral node 11b may restore its state value and transmit the restored state value to the processing node 11” and “step S130 may be performed simultaneously with forwarding steps S120-1 and S120-2, and step S130 may be performed before forwarding steps S120-1 and S120-2.”; fig. 4, para. [0050]-[0051], [0110]; Examiner note: as illustrate in figure 4 the state values are transmit from blockchain node 1 to 2 and so far. Further, i.e. “each blockchain node constituting a peer-to-peer (P2P) network manages the blocks in a data structure of a chain form.”; para. [0003]),
wherein the state snapshot enables the at least one second full node (i.e. figure 4:11b blockchain node #2; para. [0047]-[0049])
to obtain the state value without accessing its own local disk (i.e. “obtaining a first state value by querying a state database of the computing device.”; para. [0051], [0055], [0110]; Examiner note: the obtain the state value without accessing its own local disk is interpreted as the obtaining a first state value by querying a state database of the computing device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kwon that teaches guaranteeing the integrity of a state database (DB) in a blockchain-based system into the combination of the prior arts of Feng that teaches data lineage graphs, and Lu that teaches taking snapshots of blockchain data. Additionally, this approach can optimize the efficiency of legitimacy checks in blockchain.
The motivation for doing so would be to use the database state for the purpose of improving the processing performance of a query transaction because this action minimizes access to the blockchain (Kwon, para. [0040]).
As per claim 4, Feng, Lu and Kwon teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 1 above.
Additionally, Feng teaches wherein sharing the state snapshot with at least one second full node (i.e. “block nodes in the blockchain network (e.g., the full node 40B).”; fig. 2, para. [0046]-[0047]; Examiner note: figure 1 illustrates couple full nodes) comprises:
transferring the state snapshot by broadcast to peer nodes (i.e. “It is to be understood that the user node 40A shown in FIG. 4 may generate a transaction-to-be-verified (e.g., a transaction 4x shown in FIG. 4) for broadcast to the blockchain network in response to a trigger operation of a user (e.g., user 1) corresponding to the user node 40A. .. for the user node 40A and other block nodes”; figs. 1-2, 8, [0045]-[0047], [0065], [0090]; Examiner notes: the peer nodes is interpreted as the for the user node 40A and other block nodes) and
transmitting the above state snapshot to peer nodes (i.e. “(i.e. “the user node transmits a transaction-to-be-verified assembled for a user to the full node.”; figs. 5, 8, para. [0065], [0096]-[0099]; Examiner note: the sharing the state snapshot with at least one second full node is interpreted as the user node transmits a transaction-to-be-verified assembled for a user to the full node. Further, i.e. “It is to be understood that there may be one or more first state data associated with the transaction-to-be-verified that is read by the full node while executing the transaction services.”; para. [0066]).”; Examiner note: nodes 40A and other block nodes are part of the same blockchain network, functioning as peer nodes)
including at least one other full node of the blockchain network (i.e. “The hash calculation rule may be a summary algorithm agreed in advance for the user node 40A and other block nodes in the blockchain network (e.g., the full node 40B).”; figs. 1-2, para. [0047]).
As per claim 7, Feng, Lu and Kwon teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 1 above.
Additionally, Feng teaches further comprising: receiving another state snapshot (i.e. “A root hash of the root node of the MPT 5m may be taken as a state snapshot of a block where the MPT 5m is located.”; fig. 5, para. [0055]-[0058]; Examiner note: the receiving another state snapshot is interpreted as the taken as a state snapshot of a block where the MPT 5m is located)
including another state value for another new block from a full node belonging to the at least one second full node (i.e. “A key string of state data 3 may be “abc12b5”, and a specific value of state data 3 may be 12.34.”; fig. 5, para. [0055]-[0058]; Examiner note: the another state value for another new block from the full node belonging to the at least one second full node is interpreted as the specific value of state data 3 may be 12.34. Further, i.e. “It is to be understood that the full node in the embodiments of this disclosure may organize the state data shown in Table 1”; para. [0057]).
As per claim 17, Feng teaches a blockchain transaction processing apparatus controlling (i.e. “Further, FIG. 11 is a schematic structural diagram of a transaction verification apparatus according to an embodiment of this disclosure.”; para. [0004], [0007], [0121])
and operating a blockchain node (i.e. “The blockchain system may be a distributed system formed of a plurality of blockchain nodes connected by means of network communication.”; fig. 1, para. [0110], [0114])
implemented based on a desktop computer or a mobile terminal participating (i.e. “It is to be understood that the user terminal herein may include a smart terminal having a data processing function such as a smart phone, a tablet computer, a notebook computer, or a desktop computer.”; para. [0027])
in a blockchain network (i.e. “Reference is made to FIG. 1. FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a blockchain network structure according to an embodiment of this disclosure.”; figs. 1-3, para. [0026]-[0027], [0032], [0041]), comprising:
a processor configured to receive at least one instruction from a memory and execute the at least one instruction, wherein the processor is caused by the at least one instruction to (i.e. “A processor of a computer device reads the computer instructions from the computer-readable storage medium, and executes the computer instructions, causing the computer device to perform the descriptions of the transaction verification method in the foregoing embodiment corresponding to FIG. 3 or FIG. 8.”; para. [0180]):
access a local disk (i.e. “at least one magnetic disk memory”; fig. 13, para. [0176])
storing state information (i.e. “A full node 20B in the embodiments of this disclosure may be the full node in the blockchain network shown in FIG. 1, and the full node 20B may store complete state data of all accounts.”; fig. 1-3, para. [0032]; Examiner noted: figure 1 illustrated 2 full nodes. Further, i.e. “The full node refers to a blockchain node for storing complete block data.”; para. [0028]);
read a state value (i.e. “… It is to be understood that the full node may acquire an MPT in the target block, take the acquired MPT as a pending tree, read state data associated with the transaction-to-be-verified from the pending tree, and then take the read state data as first state data.”; figs. 3, 5, para. [0055], [0064]-[0065]; Examiner note: the reading a state value is interpreted as the read state data associated with the transaction-to-be-verified from the pending tree)
required for processing a transaction of a new block (i.e. “Further, the full node may execute a transaction service corresponding to the transaction-to-be-verified based on the first state data so as to obtain an initial transaction execution result corresponding to the transaction service …”; figs. 3, 5-7, para. [0064]-[0067]; Examiner note: the required for processing the transaction of the new block is interpreted as the full node may execute the transaction service corresponding to the transaction-to-be-verified based on the first state data)
from the local disk (i.e. “at least one magnetic disk memory”; fig. 13, para. [0176])
in a same order as an order of processing transactions of a plurality of new blocks (i.e. “the user node 20A may take the transaction 2x as a transaction-to-be-verified, and then transmit the transaction 2x to the full node 20B shown in FIG. 2, whereby the full node 20B may execute a transaction service corresponding to the transaction 2x, thereby obtaining transaction verification information (e.g., transaction verification information 2y shown in FIG. 2) corresponding to the transaction 2x. The full blockchain of the full node 20B may be a blockchain 2a shown in FIG. 2, and the blockchain 2a may include a plurality of blocks having complete block data”; figs. 2, 5; para. [0006], [0030], [0034]; Examiner note: the same order as the order of processing transactions of the plurality of new blocks is interpreted as the user node 20A may take the transaction 2x as a transaction-to-be-verified, and then transmit the transaction 2x to the full node 20B);
wherein the blockchain node is one of a plurality of full nodes in a distributed blockchain network (i.e. “The full node in the embodiments of this disclosure may be a blockchain node in the blockchain network having the function of saving complete block data.”; figs. 6-8, para. [0080], [0096]-[0097]);
However, it is noted that the prior art of Feng does not explicitly teach “create a state snapshot including the state value; transmit the state snapshot over a network to at least one other full node, wherein the state snapshot enables the at least one other full node to obtain the state value without accessing its own local disk.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Lu teaches create a state snapshot including the state value (i.e. “At 602, a blockchain node generates a snapshot of a current state tree associated with an FDMT during creation of a block of a blockchain, wherein the current state tree stores state information corresponding to a newest block of the blockchain.”; fig. 6, para. [0085], [0089]; Examiner note: the creating the state snapshot including the state value is interpreted as the generates a snapshot of a current state tree);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lu that teaches taking snapshots of blockchain data into Feng that teaches data lineage graphs. Additionally, this approach can optimize the efficiency of legitimacy checks in blockchain.
The motivation for doing so would be to selectively store state data associated with more frequently accessed blocks, thereby lowering the storage costs of the blockchain network without significantly affecting system performance or data integrity (Lu, para. [0007]).
However, it is noted that the prior art of Feng and Lu do not explicitly teach “transmit the state snapshot over a network to at least one other full node, wherein the state snapshot enables the at least one other full node to obtain the state value without accessing its own local disk.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Kwon teaches transmit the state snapshot over a network to at least one other full node (i.e. “the peripheral node 11b may restore its state value and transmit the restored state value to the processing node 11” and “step S130 may be performed simultaneously with forwarding steps S120-1 and S120-2, and step S130 may be performed before forwarding steps S120-1 and S120-2.”; fig. 4, para. [0050]-[0051], [0110]; Examiner note: as illustrate in figure 4 the state values are transmit from blockchain node 1 to 2 and so far. Further, i.e. “each blockchain node constituting a peer-to-peer (P2P) network manages the blocks in a data structure of a chain form.”; para. [0003]),
wherein the state snapshot enables the at least one other full node (i.e. figure 4:11b blockchain node #2; para. [0047]-[0049])
to obtain the state value without accessing its own local disk (i.e. “obtaining a first state value by querying a state database of the computing device.”; para. [0051], [0055], [0110]; Examiner note: the obtain the state value without accessing its own local disk is interpreted as the obtaining a first state value by querying a state database of the computing device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kwon that teaches guaranteeing the integrity of a state database (DB) in a blockchain-based system into the combination of the prior arts of Feng that teaches data lineage graphs, and Lu that teaches taking snapshots of blockchain data. Additionally, this approach can optimize the efficiency of legitimacy checks in blockchain.
The motivation for doing so would be to use the database state for the purpose of improving the processing performance of a query transaction because this action minimizes access to the blockchain (Kwon, para. [0040]).
8. Claims 2-3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 20230090296 A1) in view of Lu (US 20230090296 A1) in further view of Kwon et al. (US 20200364273 A1) still in further view of Gopalakrishnan et. al. (US 20190220603 A1).
As per claim 2, Feng, Lu and Kwon teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 1 above.
Additionally, Feng teaches a transaction index field (i.e. “An index relationship in which the parent node points to the child node may also be referred to as a second node index relationship, e.g., a top-down index relationship as indicated in the MPT”; fig. 5, para. [0053]; Examiner note: the transaction index field is interpreted as the index relationship),
a state value field (i.e. “Each state data is stored as (key, value). key shown in Table 1 refers to a key string of the state data, and value refers to a specific value of the state data.”; [0056]; Examiner note: the state value field is interpreted as the specific value of the state data).
However, it is noted that the combination of the prior arts of Feng, Lu and Kwon do not explicitly teach “wherein creating the state snapshot comprises generating an authenticated data structure including a block number field, a state key field, a Merkle proof field, wherein the Merkle proof is used for verifying the validity of the state value.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Gopalakrishnan teaches wherein creating the state snapshot comprises generating an authenticated data structure (i.e. “Once the software is authenticated, trusted firmware is used to implement remote attestation, which is used to enable transmission of data between different devices.”; para. [0030]; [0037])
including a block number field (i.e. “the latest block number 706”; fig. 7, para. [0069]),
a state key field (i.e. “the latest block hash 708”; fig. 7, para. [0069]),
a Merkle proof field (i.e. “Each state data is stored as (key, value). key shown in Table 1 refers to a key string of the state data, and value refers to a specific value of the state data.”; [0056]; Examiner note: the state value field is interpreted as the specific value of the state data),
wherein the Merkle proof is used for verifying the validity of the state value (i.e. “Hash trees, for example, allow efficient and secure verification of the contents of large data structures, where a Merkle tree is one type of hash tree.” and “For a node entering the blockchain for the first time, a synchronization mechanism may allow the node to download a subset of blocks and Merkle tree up to the last known synchronization block and state.”; para. [0042]-[0043], [0069], [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gopalakrishnan that teaches taking snapshots of blockchain data into the combination of the prior arts of Feng that teaches data lineage graphs, Lu that teaches taking snapshots of blockchain data, and Kwon that teaches guaranteeing the integrity of a state database (DB) in a blockchain-based system. Additionally, this approach can optimize the efficiency of legitimacy checks in blockchain.
The motivation for doing so would be to have each node maintain a copy of the distributed ledger, because it ensures data integrity, auditability and redundancy (Gopalakrishnan, para. [0002]).
As per claim 3, Feng, Lu, Kwon and Gopalakrishnan teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 2 above.
Additionally, Feng teaches wherein the format of the state snapshot comprises a number of state values field (i.e. “a specific value of state data 1 may be 100.”; para. [0056]; Examiner note: the number of state values field is interpreted as the specific value of state data 1 may be 100)
indicating a count of state values included in the state snapshot (i.e. “the first state data read by the full node may be state data 1 (e.g., 100) stored by data node 10S in the MPT 5m shown in FIG. 5, i.e. there are 100 game credits in an account balance of user 1.”; fig. 5, para. [0065]),
wherein the number of state values field indicates a count of state values included in the state snapshot for processing multiple state values in a single transmission (i.e. “the transaction-to-be-verified based on these 100 game credits, the full node has recorded 90 state data (i.e., second state data) required to be written in a block following the target block. This means that the account balance of user 1 further includes 90 game credits after the full node simulates execution of the transaction service.”; fig. 5, para. [0065]; Examiner note: the count of state values is interpreted as the account balance of user 1 further includes 90 game credits; the single transmission is interpreted as the transaction-to-be-verified. Further, i.e. “a transaction transmitted by a user node in the blockchain network and transaction verification information corresponding to the to-be-verified transaction are acquired.”; para. [0005]).
As per claim 18, Feng, Lu and Kwon teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 17 above.
Additionally, Feng teaches a transaction index field (i.e. “An index relationship in which the parent node points to the child node may also be referred to as a second node index relationship, e.g., a top-down index relationship as indicated in the MPT”; fig. 5, para. [0053]; Examiner note: the transaction index field is interpreted as the index relationship),
a state value field (i.e. “Each state data is stored as (key, value). key shown in Table 1 refers to a key string of the state data, and value refers to a specific value of the state data.”; [0056]; Examiner note: the state value field is interpreted as the specific value of the state data).
However, it is noted that the combination of the prior arts of Feng, Lu and Kwon do not explicitly teach “wherein creating the state snapshot comprises generating an authenticated data structure including a block number field, a state key field, a Merkle proof field, wherein the Merkle proof enables the at least one other full node to verify the validity of the state value without accessing a complete state tree.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Gopalakrishnan teaches wherein creating the state snapshot comprises generating an authenticated data structure (i.e. “Once the software is authenticated, trusted firmware is used to implement remote attestation, which is used to enable transmission of data between different devices.”; para. [0030]; [0037])
including a block number field (i.e. “the latest block number 706”; fig. 7, para. [0069]),
a state key field (i.e. “the latest block hash 708”; fig. 7, para. [0069]),
a Merkle proof field (i.e. “Each state data is stored as (key, value). key shown in Table 1 refers to a key string of the state data, and value refers to a specific value of the state data.”; [0056]; Examiner note: the state value field is interpreted as the specific value of the state data),
wherein the Merkle proof enables the at least one other full node to verify the validity of the state value without accessing a complete state tree (i.e. “Hash trees, for example, allow efficient and secure verification of the contents of large data structures, where a Merkle tree is one type of hash tree.” and “For a node entering the blockchain for the first time, a synchronization mechanism may allow the node to download a subset of blocks and Merkle tree up to the last known synchronization block and state.”; para. [0042]-[0043], [0069], [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gopalakrishnan that teaches taking snapshots of blockchain data into the combination of the prior art of Feng that teaches data lineage graphs, Lu that teaches taking snapshots of blockchain data, and Kwon that teaches guaranteeing the integrity of a state database (DB) in a blockchain-based system. Additionally, this approach can optimize the efficiency of legitimacy checks in blockchain.
The motivation for doing so would be to have each node maintain a copy of the distributed ledger, because it ensures data integrity, auditability and redundancy (Gopalakrishnan, para. [0002]).
9. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 20230090296 A1) in view of Lu (US 20230090296 A1) in further view of Kwon et al. (US 20200364273 A1) still in further view of Schvey et. al. (US 20180349621 A1).
As per claim 5, Feng, Lu and Kwon teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 4 above.
However, it is noted that the combination of the prior arts of Feng, Lu and Kwon do not explicitly teach “wherein, in transferring the state snapshot, a scheme for the at least one second full node to receive the state snapshot is set in advance during a handshake between the first full node and the at least one second full node.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Schvey teaches wherein, in transferring the state snapshot, a scheme (i.e. “FIG. 5 provides an illustration of a secure communication process between nodes in the network of system 100.”; fig. 5, [0070]; Examiner note: the scheme is interpreted as the secure communication process)
for the at least one second full node (i.e. “a second node 508, Node B. T”; fig. 5, para. [0070]; Examiner note: the at least one second full node is interpreted as the second node 508)
to receive the state snapshot is set in advance (i.e. “as part of the handshake process, Node B provides its identification in the form of its digital certificate, the TLS certificate.”; fig. 5, para. [0070]-[0071]; Examiner note: the receive the state snapshot is set in advance is interpreted as the provides its identification in the form of its digital certificate, the TLS certificate; where the certificate is provide to Node A in order to Node A validates the TLS certificate of Node B by checking whether the TLS certificate is registered in the peer registry)
during a handshake between the first full node and the at least one second full node (i.e. “when establishing a connection with another node in the system network, a first node 502, Node A, first undergoes a TLS handshake procedure through the use of a TLS module 504 that is communicatively coupled to a TLS module 514 of a second node 508, Node B.”; fig. 5, para. [0070]; Examiner note: the first full node is interpreted as the first node 502, Node A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Schvey that teaches a cryptographic platform for distributing data structures within a peer-to-peer network wherein encrypted messages are exchanged among nodes into the combination of the prior arts of Feng that teaches data lineage graphs, Lu that teaches taking snapshots of blockchain data, and Kwon that teaches guaranteeing the integrity of a state database (DB) in a blockchain-based system. Additionally, this approach can optimize the efficiency of legitimacy checks in blockchain.
The motivation for doing so would be to provide improved consensus mechanisms for the data structure that ensure isolation, because it can help prevent a failed consensus between a pair of nodes from resulting in cascading failures between other pairs of nodes (Schvey, para. [0006]).
10. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 20230090296 A1) in view of Lu (US 20230090296 A1) in further view of Kwon et al. (US 20200364273 A1) still in further view of Nomani et. al. (US 20220368681 A1).
As per claim 6, Feng, Lu and Kwon teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 4 above.
However, it is noted that the prior art of Feng and Kwon do not explicitly teach “wherein the scheme for the at least one second full node to receive the state snapshot includes a push type receiving scheme and a pull type receiving scheme, wherein the push type receiving scheme comprises: receiving, by the first full node, a sharing request for the state snapshot from the at least one second full node; and transmitting the state snapshot to the at least one second full node.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Lu teaches receiving, by the first full node, a sharing request for the state snapshot from the at least one second full node (i.e. “the process 600 further comprises receiving a request to retrieve the state information corresponding to the newest block; determining, through a local call, that the snapshot of the state information exists based on the ID of the snapshot;”; figs. 6-7, 10-11, para. [0088], [0092], [0119]; Examiner note: the receiving the sharing request for the state snapshot from the at least one second full node is interpreted as the receiving a request to retrieve the state information corresponding to the newest block. Further, i.e. “State data in the platform can be assembled to a global shared-state referred to as a world state.”; figs. 2, 5, para. [0004], [0060]); and
transmitting the state snapshot to the at least one second full node (i.e. “providing the state information based on the snapshot in response to the request.”; figs. 6-7, 10-11, para. [0088], [0092], [0119]; Examiner note: the transmitting the state snapshot to the at least one second full node is interpreted as the providing the state information based on the snapshot in response to the request. Further, i.e. “At 1002, a blockchain node sends a marker message from a first blockchain node in a first shard of a blockchain network to a second blockchain node in a phosphor of the blockchain network.”; fig. 10, para. [0105]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lu that teaches taking snapshots of blockchain data into the combination of the prior arts of Feng that teaches data lineage graphs, and Kwon that teaches guaranteeing the integrity of a state database (DB) in a blockchain-based system. Additionally, this can optimize processes to increase the overall efficiency of an organization, such as, for example, a business, company, enterprise, institution, agency, or the like.
The motivation for doing so would be to selectively store state data associated with more frequently accessed blocks, thereby lowering the storage costs of the blockchain network without significantly affecting system performance or data integrity (Lu, para. [0007]).
However, it is noted that the combination of the prior arts of Feng, Lu and Kwon do not explicitly teach “wherein the scheme for the at least one second full node to receive the state snapshot includes a push type receiving scheme and a pull type receiving scheme, wherein the push type receiving scheme comprises:”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Nomani teaches wherein the scheme for the at least one second full node to receive the state snapshot includes a push type receiving scheme (i.e. “Process 600 may further include retrieving (at 606) a public root key from private blockchain system 109. In some embodiments, private blockchain system 109 and/or one or more devices or systems communicatively coupled to private blockchain system 109 may “push” the public root key to private blockchain system 109.”; figs. 1, 6, para. [0056]) and
a pull type receiving scheme (i.e. “Additionally, or alternatively, UE 101 may “pull” the information from private blockchain system 109 based on a suitable identifier (e.g., an identifier of UE 101, an identifier of the communication session, etc.).”; figs. 1, 6, [0056]), wherein the push type receiving scheme comprises:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nomani that teaches providing for the secure maintenance and provision of information, such as public keys used in Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) techniques into the combination of the prior art of Feng that teaches data lineage graphs, Lu that teaches taking snapshots of blockchain data, and Kwon that teaches guaranteeing the integrity of a state database (DB) in a blockchain-based system. Additionally, this approach can optimize the efficiency of legitimacy checks in blockchain.
The motivation for doing so would be to have a private blockchain where only authorized entities are able to access the information stored in the private blockchain, because it can prevent attackers from modifying public keys and potentially gaining access to information encrypted based on such keys (Nomani, para. [0022]).
11. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 20230090296 A1) in view of Lu (US 20230090296 A1) in further view of Kwon et al. (US 20200364273 A1) still in further view of Gopalakrishnan et. al. (US 20190220603 A1) still in further view of Schvey et. al. (US 20180349621 A1).
As per claim 19, Feng, Lu, Kwon and Gopalakrishnan teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 18 above.
Additionally, Feng teaches wherein the at least one instruction causing the processor to transmit the state snapshot to the at least one other full node is configured to cause the processor to: transfer the state snapshot by broadcast to nodes including the at least one other full node of the blockchain network (i.e. “It is to be understood that the user node 40A shown in FIG. 4 may generate a transaction-to-be-verified (e.g., a transaction 4x shown in FIG. 4) for broadcast to the blockchain network in response to a trigger operation of a user (e.g., user 1) corresponding to the user node 40A. .. for the user node 40A and other block nodes”; figs. 1-2, 8, [0045]-[0047], [0065], [0090]; Examiner notes: the peer nodes is interpreted as the for the user node 40A and other block nodes);
However, it is noted that the combination of the prior arts of Feng, Lu and Gopalakrishnan do not explicitly teach “wherein a receiving scheme of the nodes is set during a handshake between the blockchain node and the at least one other full node.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Schvey teaches wherein a receiving scheme of the nodes is set (i.e. “as part of the handshake process, Node B provides its identification in the form of its digital certificate, the TLS certificate.”; fig. 5, para. [0070]-[0071]; Examiner note: the receive the state snapshot is set in advance is interpreted as the provides its identification in the form of its digital certificate, the TLS certificate; where the certificate is provide to Node A in order to Node A validates the TLS certificate of Node B by checking whether the TLS certificate is registered in the peer registry)
during a handshake between the blockchain node and the at least one other full node (i.e. “when establishing a connection with another node in the system network, a first node 502, Node A, first undergoes a TLS handshake procedure through the use of a TLS module 504 that is communicatively coupled to a TLS module 514 of a second node 508, Node B.”; fig. 5, para. [0070]; Examiner note: the first full node is interpreted as the first node 502, Node A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Schvey that teaches a cryptographic platform for distributing data structures within a peer-to-peer network wherein encrypted messages are exchanged among nodes into the combination of Feng that teaches data lineage graphs, Lu that teaches taking snapshots of blockchain data, Kwon that teaches guaranteeing the integrity of a state database (DB) in a blockchain-based system, and Gopalakrishnan that teaches taking snapshots of blockchain data. Additionally, this approach can optimize the efficiency of legitimacy checks in blockchain.
The motivation for doing so would be to provide improved consensus mechanisms for the data structure that ensure isolation, because it can help prevent a failed consensus between a pair of nodes from resulting in cascading failures between other pairs of nodes (Schvey, para. [0006]).
12. Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 20230090296 A1) in view of Haldar et. al. (US 20210117385 A1) in further view of Kwon et al. (US 20200364273 A1).
As per claim 8, Feng teaches a blockchain transaction processing method (i.e. “a method of transaction verification”; para. [0004])
performed by a second full node (i.e. “The transaction verification information is determined by a full node in the blockchain network by executing a transaction service corresponding to the to-be-verified transaction.”; fig. 1, para. [0005], [0028])
among a plurality of distributed full nodes (i.e. “The blockchain system may be a distributed system formed of a plurality of blockchain nodes connected by means of network communication.”; fig. 1, para. [0026]), the method comprising:
required to process a transaction of the new block (i.e. “Further, the full node may execute a transaction service corresponding to the transaction-to-be-verified based on the first state data so as to obtain an initial transaction execution result corresponding to the transaction service …”; figs. 3, 5-7, para. [0064]-[0067]; Examiner note: the required for processing the transaction of the new block is interpreted as the full node may execute the transaction service corresponding to the transaction-to-be-verified based on the first state data)
from a first full node over a network (i.e. “A full node 20B in the embodiments of this disclosure may be the full node in the blockchain network shown in FIG. 1, and the full node 20B may store complete state data of all accounts.”; figs. 1-2, para. [0032]; Examiner note: the first full node is interpreted as the full node 20B. Further, i.e. “a transaction verification method is provided. In an example, the method is performed by a full node in a blockchain network.”; para. [0006]);
However, it is noted that the prior art of Feng does not explicitly teach “receiving a new block; and receiving a state snapshot including a state value; wherein receiving the state snapshot enables the second full node to obtain the state value without accessing its own local disk.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Haldar teaches receiving a new block (i.e. “blockchain node 712 is a committing peer that has received a new data new data block 730 for storage on blockchain 720”; fig. 7A, para. [0100]); and
receiving a state snapshot (i.e. “identifying the storage location may be performed based on a hashed value of a content address of an InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) included with the retrieved state snapshot.”; fig. 5, para. 5B, para. [0007], [0088]-[0089]; Examiner note: the receiving a state snapshot is interpreted as the retrieved state snapshot)
wherein receiving the state snapshot enables the second full node (i.e. figure 4:11b blockchain node #2; para. [0047]-[0049])
to obtain the state value without accessing its own local disk (i.e. “obtaining a first state value by querying a state database of the computing device.”; para. [0051], [0055], [0110]; Examiner note: the obtain the state value without accessing its own local disk is interpreted as the obtaining a first state value by querying a state database of the computing device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Haldar that teaches capturing a snapshot of a state of a permissioned blockchain, storing the snapshot in a file system, and storing proof of the snapshot on a public blockchain into Feng that teaches data lineage graphs. Additionally, this can optimize processes to increase the overall efficiency of an organization, such as, for example, a business, company, enterprise, institution, agency, or the like.
The motivation for doing so would be to utilize a public blockchain, which enables distribution over multiple heterogeneous cloud contributors, thereby guaranteeing near 100% uptime (Haldar, para. [0004]).
However, it is noted that the prior art of Feng and Haldar do not explicitly teach “wherein receiving the state snapshot enables the second full node to obtain the state value without accessing its own local disk.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Kwon teaches
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kwon that teaches guaranteeing the integrity of a state database (DB) in a blockchain-based system into the combination of the prior arts of Feng that teaches data lineage graphs, and Haldar that teaches capturing a snapshot of a state of a permissioned blockchain, storing the snapshot in a file system, and storing proof of the snapshot on a public blockchain. Additionally, this approach can optimize the efficiency of legitimacy checks in blockchain.
The motivation for doing so would be to use the database state for the purpose of improving the processing performance of a query transaction because this action minimizes access to the blockchain (Kwon, para. [0040]).
As per claim 10, Feng, Haldar and Kwon teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 8 above.
Additionally, Feng teaches further comprising: determining a validity of the state value based on a block number and a transaction index included in the state snapshot (i.e. “the block generation node in the blockchain network (i.e., an SPV node in the blockchain network) may search a block header chain of the SPV node for a block header matching the block identifier in the first block header, take the block header found as a second block header, and then take a state snapshot in the second block header as a first state snapshot in the second block header..”; figs. 2-3, para. [0075]-[0079]).
13. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 20230090296 A1) in view of Haldar et. al. (US 20210117385 A1) in further view of Kwon et al. (US 20200364273 A1) still in further view of Gopalakrishnan et. al. (US 20190220603 A1).
As per claim 9, Feng, Haldar and Kwon teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 8 above.
Additionally, Feng teaches a transaction index field (i.e. “An index relationship in which the parent node points to the child node may also be referred to as a second node index relationship, e.g., a top-down index relationship as indicated in the MPT”; fig. 5, para. [0053]; Examiner note: the transaction index field is interpreted as the index relationship),
a state value field (i.e. “Each state data is stored as (key, value). key shown in Table 1 refers to a key string of the state data, and value refers to a specific value of the state data.”; [0056]; Examiner note: the state value field is interpreted as the specific value of the state data).
However, it is noted that the combination of the prior arts of Feng, Haldar and Kwon do not explicitly teach “wherein the state snapshot comprises an authenticated data structure including a block number field, a state key field, a Merkle proof field, wherein the Merkle proof is used for verifying the validity of the state value.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Gopalakrishnan teaches wherein the state snapshot comprises an authenticated data structure (i.e. “Once the software is authenticated, trusted firmware is used to implement remote attestation, which is used to enable transmission of data between different devices.”; para. [0030]; [0037])
including a block number field (i.e. “the latest block number 706”; fig. 7, para. [0069]),
a state key field (i.e. “the latest block hash 708”; fig. 7, para. [0069]),
a Merkle proof field (i.e. “Each state data is stored as (key, value). key shown in Table 1 refers to a key string of the state data, and value refers to a specific value of the state data.”; [0056]; Examiner note: the state value field is interpreted as the specific value of the state data),
wherein the Merkle proof is used for verifying the validity of the state value (i.e. “Hash trees, for example, allow efficient and secure verification of the contents of large data structures, where a Merkle tree is one type of hash tree.” and “For a node entering the blockchain for the first time, a synchronization mechanism may allow the node to download a subset of blocks and Merkle tree up to the last known synchronization block and state.”; para. [0042]-[0043], [0069], [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gopalakrishnan that teaches taking snapshots of blockchain data into the combination of Feng that teaches data lineage graphs, Haldar that teaches capturing a snapshot of a state of a permissioned blockchain, storing the snapshot in a file system, and storing proof of the snapshot on a public blockchain, and Kwon that teaches guaranteeing the integrity of a state database (DB) in a blockchain-based system. Additionally, this approach can optimize the efficiency of legitimacy checks in blockchain.
The motivation for doing so would be to have each node maintain a copy of the distributed ledger, because it ensures data integrity, auditability and redundancy (Gopalakrishnan, para. [0002]).
14. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 20230090296 A1) in view of Haldar et. al. (US 20210117385 A1) in further view of Kwon et al. (US 20200364273 A1) still in further view of Novotny et. al. (US 20210149775 A1).
As per claim 11, Feng, Haldar and Kwon teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 10 above.
However, it is noted that the combination of the prior arts of Feng, Haldar and Kwon do not explicitly teach “further comprising: when the state value is valid, storing the state value in a memory storage; and when the state value is not valid, ignoring or discarding the state value.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Novotny teaches further comprising: when the state value is valid, storing the state value in a memory storage (i.e. “Furthermore, in response to determining the snapshot is valid, in 518 the method may include updating key values of a world state database based on the snapshot of key values.”; figs. 4C, 5, para. [0007], [0081], [0087]); and
when the state value is not valid, ignoring or discarding the state value (i.e. “Any computer that does not agree, discards the records that are causing the problem.”; para. [0146]; Examiner note: the state value is not valid, ignoring or discarding the state value is interpreted as the any computer that does not agree, discards the records that are causing the problem).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Novotny that teaches a process of generating a snapshot of a world state database and using the snapshot to recover the world state database of a blockchain peer into the combination of the prior arts of Feng that teaches data lineage graphs, Haldar that teaches capturing a snapshot of a state of a permissioned blockchain, storing the snapshot in a file system, and storing proof of the snapshot on a public blockchain, and Kwon that teaches guaranteeing the integrity of a state database (DB) in a blockchain-based system. Additionally, this approach can optimize the efficiency of legitimacy checks in blockchain.
The motivation for doing so would be to collectively manage and store data on the blockchain, because it allows a world state database to quickly identify and retrieve the current values of the data objects (Novotny, para. [0004]).
15. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 20230090296 A1) in view of Haldar et. al. (US 20210117385 A1) in further view of Kwon et al. (US 20200364273 A1) still in further view of Schvey et. al. (US 20180349621 A1).
As per claim 13, Feng, Haldar and Kwon teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 8 above.
However, it is noted that the combination of the prior arts of Feng, Haldar and Kwon do not explicitly teach “wherein receiving the state snapshot is performed according to a receiving scheme set in advance during a handshake with the first full node.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Schvey teaches wherein receiving the state snapshot is performed according to a receiving scheme set in advance during a handshake with the first full node (i.e. “when establishing a connection with another node in the system network, a first node 502, Node A, first undergoes a TLS handshake procedure through the use of a TLS module 504 that is communicatively coupled to a TLS module 514 of a second node 508, Node B.”; fig. 5, para. [0070]; Examiner note: the first full node is interpreted as the first node 502, Node A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Schvey that teaches a cryptographic platform for distributing data structures within a peer-to-peer network wherein encrypted messages are exchanged among nodes into the combination of the prior arts of Feng that teaches data lineage graphs, Haldar that teaches capturing a snapshot of a state of a permissioned blockchain, storing the snapshot in a file system, and storing proof of the snapshot on a public blockchain, and Kwon that teaches guaranteeing the integrity of a state database (DB) in a blockchain-based system. Additionally, this approach can optimize the efficiency of legitimacy checks in blockchain.
The motivation for doing so would be to provide improved consensus mechanisms for the data structure that ensure isolation, because it can help prevent a failed consensus between a pair of nodes from resulting in cascading failures between other pairs of nodes (Schvey, para. [0006]).
16. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 20230090296 A1) in view of Haldar et. al. (US 20210117385 A1) in further view of Kwon et al. (US 20200364273 A1) still in further view of Schvey et. al. (US 20180349621 A1) still in further view of Nomani et. al. (US 20220368681 A1) still in further view of Lu (US 20230090296 A1).
As per claim 14, Feng, Haldar, Kwon and Schvey teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 13 above.
However, it is noted that the combination of the prior arts of Feng, Haldar, Kwon and Schvey do not explicitly teach “wherein the receiving scheme includes a push type receiving scheme and a pull type receiving scheme;”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Nomani teaches wherein the receiving scheme includes a push type receiving scheme (i.e. “Process 600 may further include retrieving (at 606) a public root key from private blockchain system 109. In some embodiments, private blockchain system 109 and/or one or more devices or systems communicatively coupled to private blockchain system 109 may “push” the public root key to private blockchain system 109.”; figs. 1, 6, para. [0056])
and a pull type receiving scheme (i.e. “Additionally, or alternatively, UE 101 may “pull” the information from private blockchain system 109 based on a suitable identifier (e.g., an identifier of UE 101, an identifier of the communication session, etc.).”; figs. 1, 6, [0056]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nomani that teaches providing for the secure maintenance and provision of information, such as public keys used in Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) techniques into the combination of the prior arts of Feng that teaches data lineage graphs, Haldar that teaches capturing a snapshot of a state of a permissioned blockchain, storing the snapshot in a file system, and storing proof of the snapshot on a public blockchain, Kwon that teaches guaranteeing the integrity of a state database (DB) in a blockchain-based system, and Schvey that teaches a cryptographic platform for distributing data structures within a peer-to-peer network wherein encrypted messages are exchanged among nodes. Additionally, this approach can optimize the efficiency of legitimacy checks in blockchain.
The motivation for doing so would be to have a private blockchain where only authorized entities are able to access the information stored in the private blockchain, because it can prevent attackers from modifying public keys and potentially gaining access to information encrypted based on such keys (Nomani, para. [0022]).
However, it is noted that the combination of the prior arts of Feng, Haldar, Kwon, Schvey and Nomani do not explicitly teach “wherein receiving the state snapshot according to the push type receiving scheme comprises: transmitting a request message to the first full node to request the state value; and receiving the state snapshot comprising the state value.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Lu teaches wherein receiving the state snapshot according to the push type receiving scheme comprises: transmitting a request message to the first full node to request the state value (i.e. “the apparatus 700 further comprises a reception sub-module for receiving a request to retrieve the state information corresponding to the newest block, a determination sub-module for determining, through a local call, that the snapshot of the state information exists based on the ID of the snapshot”; figs. 6-7, 10-11, para. [0088], [0092], [0105], [0119]); and
receiving the state snapshot comprising the state value (i.e. “a provision sub-module for providing the state information based on the snapshot in response to the request.;”; figs. 6-7, 10-11, para. [0088], [0092], [0105], [0119]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lu that teaches taking snapshots of blockchain data into the combination of the prior arts of Feng that teaches data lineage graphs, Haldar that teaches capturing a snapshot of a state of a permissioned blockchain, storing the snapshot in a file system, and storing proof of the snapshot on a public blockchain, Kwon that teaches guaranteeing the integrity of a state database (DB) in a blockchain-based system, Schvey that teaches a cryptographic platform for distributing data structures within a peer-to-peer network wherein encrypted messages are exchanged among nodes, and Nomani that teaches providing for the secure maintenance and provision of information, such as public keys used in Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) techniques. Additionally, this approach can optimize the efficiency of legitimacy checks in blockchain.
The motivation for doing so would be to selectively store state data associated with more frequently accessed blocks, thereby lowering the storage costs of the blockchain network without significantly affecting system performance or data integrity (Lu, para. [0007]).
17. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 20230090296 A1) in view of Haldar et. al. (US 20210117385 A1) in further view of Kwon et al. (US 20200364273 A1) still in further view of Kim et. al. (US 20180293557 A1).
As per claim 15, Feng, Haldar and Kwon teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 8 above.
However, it is noted that the combination of the prior arts of Feng, Haldar and Kwon do not explicitly teach “further comprising: standing by for a preset time until receiving the state value required to process the transaction of the new block from the first full node.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches further comprising: standing by for a preset time until receiving the state value required to process the transaction of the new block from the first full node (i.e. “For example, because it takes an average of 10 minutes for block mining in a bitcoin blockchain, 10 minutes of standby time may be generated until the automatic charging is completed. Because more standby time is required for block mining for the transaction of the repayment to be approved of, about 20 minutes of lead time may be generated until the repayment is completed in the case of the bitcoin blockchain.”; para. [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim that teaches an automatic charging method devised to solve a problem of low user convenience in providing a service for charging electronic currency automatically based on a blockchain into the combination of the prior arts of Feng that teaches data lineage graphs, Haldar that teaches capturing a snapshot of a state of a permissioned blockchain, storing the snapshot in a file system, and storing proof of the snapshot on a public blockchain, and Kwon that teaches guaranteeing the integrity of a state database (DB) in a blockchain-based system. Additionally, this approach can optimize the efficiency of legitimacy checks in blockchain.
The motivation for doing so would be to enable automatic charging transactions and repayment transactions on the basis of reliability secured through a permission-based blockchain network, because it can alleviate excessive requirements for proof of work needed to create a block and also immediately process a requested transaction on the basis of the secured reliability (Kim, para. [0044], [0048]).
18. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 20230090296 A1) in view of Haldar et. al. (US 20210117385 A1) in further view of Kwon et al. (US 20200364273 A1) still in further view of Xu et. al. (US 20170195699 A1).
As per claim 16, Feng, Haldar and Kwon teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 8 above.
Additionally, Feng teaches fetching the state value from a memory space storing the state value received from the first full node to process the transaction without accessing a local disk (i.e. “As shown in FIG. 6, the first proof of existence of the first state data acquired by the block generation node in the blockchain network from the state read set may be the proof of existence 6p shown in FIG. 6.”; fig. 6, para. [0080]; Examiner note: the fetching the state value is interpreted as the first state data acquired. The prior art of Feng do not disclose a local disk access during this procedure therefore it is interpreted to be performed without accessing a local disk).
However, it is noted that the combination of the prior arts of Feng, Haldar and Kwon do not explicitly teach “further comprising: determining whether the state value required to process the transaction of the new block exists in a cache; and if the state value required to process the transaction of the new block does not exist in the cache;”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Xu teaches further comprising: determining whether the state value required to process the transaction of the new block exists in a cache (i.e. “identify, in the cache, the status corresponding to the hash value of the second image block as sent, and set a sending flag bit of the second image block to sending allowed if a hash value of a second image block in each pixel scale is found in the cache, and a status”; para. [0060]); and
if the state value required to process the transaction of the new block does not exist in the cache (i.e. “a status, in the cache, corresponding to the hash value of the second image block is unsent”; para. [0060]; Examiner note: the if the state value required to process the transaction of the new block does not exist in the cache is interpreted as the hash value of the second image block is unsent);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Xu that teaches a an image transmission method and an apparatus into the combination of Feng that teaches data lineage graphs, Haldar that teaches capturing a snapshot of a state of a permissioned blockchain, storing the snapshot in a file system, and storing proof of the snapshot on a public blockchain, and Kwon that teaches guaranteeing the integrity of a state database (DB) in a blockchain-based system. Additionally, this approach can optimize the efficiency of legitimacy checks in blockchain.
The motivation for doing so would be to obtain multiple image blocks in each pixel scale because it can reduce redundant data, computational complexity, and space complexity, and reduce the requirement for bandwidth while transmitting the image (Xu, para. [0006]-[0007]).
Prior Art of Record
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zamani et al. (US 11799660 B2), teaches a mechanism to verify if particular interactions are included in a blockchain.
Channa et al. (US 11539526 B2), teaches managing user authentication in a blockchain network.
Conclusion
20. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTONIO CAIA DO whose telephone number is (469)295-9251. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday / 06:30 to 16:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ng, Amy can be reached on (571) 270-1698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTONIO J CAIA DO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2164
/MARK E HERSHLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164